Can a Christian be a Pacifist?

[mattrose]

My argument is that some officers are also 'not' compatible with ‘Kingdom’ Christianity (aggressive ones)

Doing their job would be to fully protect victims, not back out if the attacker gets 'too' violent.

Your argument, here, is that some officers do their job well (they don't too quickly become violent). We agree that such people aren't compatible with the kingdom. I take it a step further (which I'll continue to talk about below), but there is nothing disagreeable here. Your argument, in this quote, is an argument with nobody.

I was showing that it is not the occupation necessarily that makes it good or bad, it is the Christian way in which you do your job. Not with violence or aggression, this could apply to any occupation, even a homemaker or Baker.

I agree that it is not the occupation NECESSARILY that makes it good or bad (any occupation can be performed in a corrupt manner). But even you added the word 'necessarily' which shows that some occupations potentially are inherently compatible with Christianity or not. So, once again, what you 'showed' isn't anything that we disagree about since all you showed is that it is not the occupation 'necessarily' that makes it incompatible.

When David cut off Goliaths head, that was a KING thing, David saved Israel that day. When David killed Bathsheba’s husband, that was a sin. You do see the difference, right?

Haha. Since your first argument didn't actually argue anything... and the thing you then showed didn't show anything... it led you to ask this pretty ridiculous question. Yes, I see the difference. The first example was a military killing (which God ordains). The second was a personal murder (which God does not). If you seriously had to ask me if I understood the difference it only goes to prove that you haven't actually understood my position!

Again, the Romans were completely Pagan

In what sense were they completely pagan? Did they not have some laws that were moral in nature? Was murder legal? I assume, based on this quote, that you are suggesting that the United States government is far less pagan. What does that really mean? Is the US government somewhat Christian? Is it only 10% pagan?

yet still there is no indication in scripture of service as unchristian. Neither would becoming a Governor, public official, or tax collector be acceptable – at that time (Note Homers link also)

Who cares? Even if there WAS a passage listing 10 banned occupations (and the list included all the occupations we're talking about), it wouldn't much matter to you because you would just attribute that to how 'completely pagan' the Roman Empire was. So we're not really looking for a concrete statement to begin with, are we? We're looking for biblical principles from Jesus. I think there's a biblical principle from Jesus that Christians shouldn't kill their enemies. You disagree. I don't even claim that there are absolutely no exceptions to the rule, but still you insist on disagreeing with me.

So you ‘are’ saying; A Christian ‘can’ protect someone using extreme force, if necessary?
Or are you still saying; It is wrong for a Christian (?).

A Christian can use physicality for defense (or to stop the attacker from attacking without killing him). There may even be extreme cases where a Christian could temporarily take on the role of the state (but this wouldn't be a Christian action, it would temporarily performing the states role). It is not a Christian action to kill an enemy. I am amazed that this is a controversial statement.

the post was; Can a Christian be a pacifist? (Their was never a question about unbelievers)
You keep reverting back to us that Christians shouldn’t be officers, or service men.

The original question is absurd unless 'pacifist' is defined in a way that could not properly be given as a label to anyone that has ever been on this message board.

Throw up? By that time your 'being' raped. Creative? I guess your strategy is to run around in circles until you dizzy your opponent and hope he will fall over. This certainly is creative, and it is wearing me down, but I am not going to suggest my daughter or friends try this. In emergency situations, the definition implies that the best defense is to never waste time. One proven method for danger is to do something dumb, any training would tell you to act quickly, faster than the attacker that is. It doesn’t seem to bother attackers to get blood and guts on them, I do not know why vomit is going to stop someone. We are not talking about romance.

Let's think this through:

Scenario... a woman is alone (no way of getting human help) and about to get raped (the man has made his intentions clear).

CASE STUDY 1: She has no gun on her
In such a case, you and I would both agree, I think, that she has every right and duty to physically defend herself as best as possible. If she is unable to physically defend herself, I suggested that she throw up as a last resort... b/c there are documented cases where that has deterred the violent attacker. You ridiculed this advice. All I was saying that is if she has no hope of defending herself or getting outside help, this is a good thing to try. It is also non-violent.

CASE STUDY 2: She has a gun on her
In such a case, you and I would both agree, I think, that she should try to use some non-violent means to either get away or get help. But what should she do if neither of those options are available? Do you think she should shoot the potential rapist before he gets close to her and her opportunity is gone? Do you think she should try to shoot him in the head, heart, or legs? I'm genuinely curious. You seem to think that my position is that she should just lay down, throw up, and get raped. I never said any such thing. If she had a gun, I would urge her to wave it before he got close. If he persisted in aggressive moves toward her, I would urge her to fire a warning shot near his feet. If he persisted still (or the 2nd step could be skipped altogether depending on proximity/timing), I would not object to her attempting to disable him by shooting him in the leg. What I would never counsel her to do is attempt to kill the man (he may die accidentally, of course). Would you?

My point is, depending on how you answer those questions.... our positions are either pretty similar... or you are way to willing to kill people.

Have you ever been in a violent situation? Have you ever had to deal with a violent man (or two) there is no time to get creative, if they advance you have to ‘stop’ them, it is never pretty, or predictable. It may depend on where you live, your town, or who your in-laws are.

Relatively speaking, I wouldn't say I've ever been in a violent situation. I was, once in a while, bullied in school. I've been physically punched, spit on, etc.

I agree that there is often no time to 'get creative.' That is exactly why I think it is important to discuss creative approaches to violence before hand AND why it is important to walk in the Spirit (who may very well endow us with sudden inspiration).

There is, quite often, a big difference between stopping them and killing them.

Again; the post was; Can a ‘Christian’ be a pacifist?

Strangely enough, this post was a spin-off of my good friday message. I posted my good friday devotional about how Christian sacrifice, in the Spirit of the cross, is a powerful thing. You recommended, quite politely, that I should consider illustrating my point further by including the sacrifices of military men.

I responded by saying:

While I am thankful for the troops... and while they are a great example of sacrifice... my theme was kingdom sacrifice. I, personally, feel that military efforts are sacrifices for worldly nations or principles like freedom, but they are not specifically kingdom sacrifices. In fact, in my opinion, the very method of the military is in pretty stark contrast with kingdom principles.

[/quote]

My point was, military people do indeed make sacrifices... but they are not cross-shaped sacrifices. Jesus didn't die in that kind of war. He died willingly (like military men), but also because of his refusal to resort to violence (unlike military men). There are cross shaped sacrifices and sword shaped sacrifices. But if your argument is correct... I don't see that there really is a difference. Why shouldn't Christians form their own independent police-force or militia? If such work is good AND not incompatible with the Gospel.... AND IF Christians are better equipped to do the job well (a point you have successfully argued)... then why not? Wouldn't a Christian militia be the best militia possible? Is Constantine a hero of yours?

[steve]

I suggested that she throw up as a last resort...It is also non-violent.

Unless it is "projectile vomiting."


jriccitelli wrote:

In all the hundreds of cases (happening everyday) where the attacker will ‘not’ stop - it is 100%. And again these are not hypothetical, they are happening this very moment, all over, and again in every jail and prison the inmates are kept in – ‘because’ of the authority vested in the sword. (If you want to test your theory, do prison ministry, and ask the guards to leave)

Matt responded:

Frustratingly, this paragraph represents a TOTAL IGNORANCE of my position. I am in favor of God's plan to create governments in this present age. I think God is smart. Why would I ask the guards to leave if I believe they are performing a God-given role?

Matt, I think it is clear that j.r. does not share your view about the nature of kingdom of God. This is not too surprising, since a great number of Christians see it differently from the way we do. You are seeing the kingdom's work as an entirely different sphere than that of the secular State, though both have their respective legitimacy. He does not have the same vision of the kingdom, and is thinking of Christian life as defined by a set of individual behaviors that are either moral or immoral. The Christian is to abstain from the immoral ones—but those would be immoral also for unbelievers. He is not seeing the big picture the same as you, so you cannot make sense to each other.

He recognizes that some professions are inappropriate for Christians—e.g., prostitution, drug-dealing—but they are immoral vocations and wrong for everybody. That there could be activities not intrinsically immoral, but that Christians might be expected to refrain from them because they are the work of another agency than the church, is dealing in categories that, I think, are not a part of his mental furniture...nor that of many others.

His arguments wholly miss your points for this reason alone, I think. To continue arguing over a specific vocational option without an agreement on issues more fundamental—like the nature of the kingdom of God—will no doubt continue to frustrate both of you.

[jriccitelli]

He does not have the same vision of the kingdom...

Steve, how do you get this ‘vision of the Kingdom' you have that allows you to see this big picture?
(And how are you sure it's correct?)

'... and is thinking of Christian life as defined by a set of individual behaviors that are either moral or immoral'

I am not under the Law if that is what that means. The Spirit leads me, and the Spirit and the Word agree.

He is not seeing the big picture the same as you, so you cannot make sense to each other.

Is this something a regular Christian can see? From where do you get this big picture?

[jriccitelli]

Matt, I have made notes to what you have been saying all along, and you have been saying; it is better to let the killer live than to allow the victim to live, am I wrong, am I misunderstanding you?
I say; we are called to His wisdom and being led by the Spirit – not a rule.

“Where we disagree, it seems, is that you think controlled anger and aggression that takes the form of physical violence up to and including the death of the 'bad guy' is appropriate for Christians”
'... My point all along has been that Christians are called to be set apart for a very different role' (Matt)

Our being set apart does not mean set apart from people and helping others, God is very much into people. Set apart means being set apart from sin, not people.

The killing of a bad guy is sometimes the right thing to do in this fallen age, but it is not the 'Christian' thing to do. God has more going on than just the church, but the church is the most important thing God has going on... and its purity should be protected (Matt Apr14)

The Church is the most important thing to Him (here), correct. And people make up the church and the world, so people are the things that should be protected. The inability to make a decision in an emergency comes from saying I do not know what Gods will is on Justice so I prefer to let evil win so that I am not wrong where God may know better. I understand that, but that is assuming our sense of judgment is not good enough to make a correct judgment in this situation, I read that we are called to wisdom and knowledge so that we should have enough wisdom to make these and other difficult decisions. I have not read where it says Gods intention and Will to defend the innocent is to throw our hands up.

[mattrose]

Matt, I have made notes to what you have been saying all along, and you have been saying; it is better to let the killer live than to allow the victim to live, am I wrong, am I misunderstanding you?

You have been making notes all along and THAT is your summary? You are wrong. You are misunderstanding me. All along, I have said that it is a good thing that God ordained such things as governments which subsequently ordain such things as the police and military. In most situations, Christians can appeal to such entities to temporarily dull evil. In situations where there is no hope of involving the police, I have said repeatedly that every non-violent option should be tried where possible (And you agreed). I have said that if it is just me (a Christian) and the individual (a non-Christian)... I'd rather die than kill him (and, I think, you actually agreed with that too). We also talked about a situation where a Christian is in a position to stop an attacker from killing others by utilizing violence and I have said repeatedly that in those rare cases it may be allowable to temporarily serve in the role of a law enforcement agent. I insisted that attempts to disable the attacker in such cases should be geared toward mere disablement and not death.

I say; we are called to His wisdom and being led by the Spirit – not a rule.

Cool. The Spirit will lead you to love your enemies... b/c the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ.

Our being set apart does not mean set apart from people and helping others, God is very much into people. Set apart means being set apart from sin, not people.

Evil people are people too. We are set apart for God's purposes, which includes loving our enemies. It is a sin to not love your enemies.

The Church is the most important thing to Him (here), correct. And people make up the church and the world, so people are the things that should be protected. The inability to make a decision in an emergency comes from saying I do not know what Gods will is on Justice so I prefer to let evil win so that I am not wrong where God may know better. I understand that, but that is assuming our sense of judgment is not good enough to make a correct judgment in this situation, I read that we are called to wisdom and knowledge so that we should have enough wisdom to make these and other difficult decisions. I have not read where it says Gods intention and Will to defend the innocent is to throw our hands up.

We're done. You simply keep re-stating things about my position that have nothing to do with my position. "Inability to make a decision" has nothing to do with my position. I have laid out quite clearly what my thought process is in advance. "I prefer to let evil win" has nothing to do with my position. "throw our hands up" has nothing to do with my position. Steve said the issue, here, is that you don't think of The Kingdom in the same way. This is likely true. But there is another issue as well (one also pointed out already, not quite as important, but just as frustrating). You don't really read what other people say. And you don't respond to questions that I ask you. So is this a dialogue? It's actually just your monologue. If I'm not genuinely invited to converse with you then why would I stick around in this thread?

I think Christians should spend more time trying to figure out how to be peacemakers than we do defending our right to kill bad guys. And that's my final point.

[dwilkins]

I was curious about how the pacifist approach to Christianity deals with Jesus' admonition to the Disciples to buy some swords. We chatted about it for a little bit in the earlier thread, but I think there is more mileage to it:

Luke 22:35-38 (ESV)
35 And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing."
36 He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.
37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment."
38 And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough."

Doug

[steve]

I would like to hear how the non-pacifist deals with that passage.

In particular, it would be good to know the following:

1. What is the purpose of buying a sword?

2. What is meant by a "sword"?

3. How do these instructions (v.36) follow logically upon the answer they gave to His first question (v.35)?

4. Why did Jesus speak as if it was necessary for every man to have one (v.36), and then back down when only two were produced (v.38)?

5. How does buying a sword help fulfill Isaiah 53, which Jesus quotes as His reason (v.37)?

6. If Jesus wanted the disciples to defend themselves with swords, why did He rebuke Peter for doing so?

7. If Jesus had the disciples' self-defense in mind, why did the early church never defend themselves in this way?

I am genuinely curious. I don't have a good explanation for the passage. Does anyone?

[Homer]

I am genuinely curious. I don't have a good explanation for the passage. Does anyone?

I will take a pass for now since I am in the undecided, open minded camp, just seeking for truth. I was raised in a pacifist home but have been acquainted with some very devout men who had been in wars and also worked in law enforcement. I can not view them as sinners.

I am unsure I understand Steve and Matt. It seems you are saying the occupation of policeman is incompatible with that of Christian because it is not "kingdom" work, but the work of government. But in one sense almost all jobs are not kingdom work and in another sense, any job that is not immoral or forbidden can be kingdom work:

Ephesians 6:5-8, New King James Version (NKJV)
5. Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; 6. not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7. with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8. knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.

Whatever occupation we are in, if we work as Jesus would have as work and treat those about us as Jesus would have us treat them, it seems to me we would be doing kingdom work, and sowing seed by how we live.

Working as a police officer is performing a God approved function of Government, a "minister of God". I do not see how it can be a sinful position for a Christian and not sinful for an unbeliever, unless somehow a Christian can not work for the government, which would seem to rule out being a mailman. The determining factor must be the potential need to employ violent force in police work.

Then the question for me is whether Jesus actually ever forbade a disciple from using violent force to defend another person. I have no question that retaliation and revenge are forbidden. And it seems apparent that we are to be totally pacifist when persecuted for our faith. But I can think of no place where Jesus or the Apostles directly forbade work as a policeman or service in the military, either because it is inherently immoral or by positive command.

Matt wrote:

If she had a gun, I would urge her to wave it before he got close. If he persisted in aggressive moves toward her, I would urge her to fire a warning shot near his feet. If he persisted still (or the 2nd step could be skipped altogether depending on proximity/timing), I would not object to her attempting to disable him by shooting him in the leg. What I would never counsel her to do is attempt to kill the man (he may die accidentally, of course). Would you?

It is my understanding that experts do not advise trying to stop someone by shooting them in the leg(s). Can be very difficult to hit a moving target and even then there is a chance, as you appear to indicate, that you might hit a major artery resulting in death. Seems to me the otherwise defenseless person should not attempt to kill per se, but to stop the attack, aim for the torso,hoping not to kill. The attacker assumes the risk for his action.

[steve]

Homer,

I find your position reasonable, and I think it is similar to what I have written in my article on this subject, posted at my website. The one area of difference is that I see police and military work as being in a class by themselves. You wrote:

I do not see how it can be a sinful position for a Christian and not sinful for an unbeliever, unless somehow a Christian can not work for the government, which would seem to rule out being a mailman.

Being a mailman is not intrinsically "government work." Nor is being a public librarian, teacher, fireman, municipal swimming instructor, etc. These are services that have been assumed by the government, but are not the duties assigned distinctively to them by God. They are, therefore, not activities that are in conflict with the Christian's vocation. I believe that Matt and I are seeing a certain type of service (public defense and criminal justice) as being the limited sphere that God has assigned to the State, and which He has not assigned to the Church (the Kingdom citizens).

These two agencies have intrinsically opposite job descriptions in God's overall plan for societies. The State's job is defined as being the "punishment evildoers" (1 Peter 2;13-14). By contrast, the Church is the agency of mercy to evildoers. We have special duties within this sphere. It is not for the State to preach the gospel, for example.

The Government is assigned a separate sphere, and has its distinctive duties. It is not ours to judge those who are "outside" our sphere (1 Cor.5:12/ 2 Cor.10:13). God judges them (1 Cor.5:13), and has appointed the State as His minister of vengeance (Rom.13:4). It is right for the State to avenge, but not for Christians (Rom.12:19).

Thus there are activities that are legitimate for the sphere of the State, but not for the Church. Agents of the State are not sinning when they do those things, but Christians are not authorized by God to do them. A law enforcement officer may commandeer a private citizen's vehicle in the course of pursuing a suspect. If I were to do the same thing, I would be a car-jacker.

While we (nonviolently) judge those who are "inside" (that is, through church discipline), we are to act differently (mercifully) toward those outside (1 Thess.4:9-12). The State is not assigned to act mercifully—hence, the police, the criminal justice system and military services. It is necessary that we behold the goodness and the severity of the Lord. But the State is His arm of severity, while the Kingdom of God is His arm of goodness (mercy).

This distinction was clearly seen by Christians for the first three centuries, and they affirmed this paradigm. After Constantine, the State and the Church, and their respective roles, became confused, as they obviously still are, in the minds of many Christians.

However, God is not a legalist. The function of mercy and love may require, incidentally, that force be employed in protecting an innocent victim. This is not the Church's responsibility directly, but the State's. Where the State is not present to do its job, both Matt and I believe that it can be appropriate for the Christian to intervene with force to protect the victim in the immediate danger. This is not the same thing as signing up to do the same thing as a career.

[mattrose]

I was raised in a pacifist home but have been acquainted with some very devout men who had been in wars and also worked in law enforcement. I can not view them as sinners.

I want to be clear. I have absolutely NO DOUBT that there are many many Christians currently serving either in the military or in law enforcement. Their doing so does not make them, somehow, less Christian in my book (not that my book matters). I think if they are in a position where violence behavior is expected and killing is sometimes necessary then they have put themselves in a position that Christians shouldn't put themselves into. But I also don't claim to be absolutely certain that I am right on this issue. And I leave it up to each Christian individual to follow their conscience on such issues as these that difficult to navigate from Scripture alone. Nevertheless, I also believe that one of the best ways for the church to arrive at truth is for Christians to debate passionately the various positions to see where each argument has its weaknesses. I am proud to represent the peacemaker approach to these issues with vigor.

I am unsure I understand Steve and Matt. It seems you are saying the occupation of policeman is incompatible with that of Christian because it is not "kingdom" work, but the work of government. But in one sense almost all jobs are not kingdom work and in another sense, any job that is not immoral or forbidden can be kingdom work:

Personally, I am NOT saying that. I am saying police-work (At least in our context where it involves willingness to kill) is not a job Christians should enter into. Not all secular jobs involve components like killing, obviously. Each occupation should be examined on a case by case basis to see whether or not it is inherently anti-kingdom-ethic in orientation. Obviously building car parts does not go against the kingdom ethic. But killing enemies does.

Whatever occupation we are in, if we work as Jesus would have as work and treat those about us as Jesus would have us treat them, it seems to me we would be doing kingdom work, and sowing seed by how we live.

Well, you know that is not completely true. It is a generality. How could one work as Jesus would have us work if our work is that of a con-artist? A prostitute? Etc. I'm not saying being a police-officer is equivalent to those positions, of course. I'm just making the point that some jobs take us outside the bounds of a Christian ethic, to varying degrees. Likewise, if someone became convinced that a major area of Satan's work in America was dependance on drugs... one might feel convicted to leave their job as a pharmacist. If someone became convicted that a major area of Kingdom work was creation care, one might no longer be able to work at a factory that blows black smoke into the air all day. My point being, we should find out, to the best of our ability, what being a kingdom person entails... and then we should make major life decisions based on that understanding.

Working as a police officer is performing a God approved function of Government, a "minister of God". I do not see how it can be a sinful position for a Christian and not sinful for an unbeliever, unless somehow a Christian can not work for the government, which would seem to rule out being a mailman. The determining factor must be the potential need to employ violent force in police work.

It can be a sinful position for a Christian whose conscience tells them they shouldn't be involved in violence/killing, but goes ahead in their police work anyways. For Christians who are not convicted... they still might be WRONG without being SINFUL if we're using the most practical definition of sin (voluntary transgression of a known law of God). The determining factor is whether or not there is a component of the job that goes directly against the kingdom-ethic (in this case, don't kill enemies).

Then the question for me is whether Jesus actually ever forbade a disciple from using violent force to defend another person. I have no question that retaliation and revenge are forbidden. And it seems apparent that we are to be totally pacifist when persecuted for our faith. But I can think of no place where Jesus or the Apostles directly forbade work as a policeman or service in the military, either because it is inherently immoral or by positive command.

There's 2 issues going on here. First, God has indeed revealed that there is a Kingdom role for the church in the world. He has also revealed that government has a role. So there is a clear distinction in role. But Second, there is also the kingdom-ethic (Sermon on the Mount) that all Christians should apply to their lives which would seemingly play a major role in a Christian choosing an occupation (one that doesn't cause the person to go against the principles in their manifesto). I've already said that there may be rare cases where a Christian can temporarily take on the role of the police to protect others. My point all along is that we shouldn't be more concerned with the exceptions than the rule (be peacemakers).

It is my understanding that experts do not advise trying to stop someone by shooting them in the leg(s). Can be very difficult to hit a moving target and even then there is a chance, as you appear to indicate, that you might hit a major artery resulting in death. Seems to me the otherwise defenseless person should not attempt to kill per se, but to stop the attack, aim for the torso,hoping not to kill. The attacker assumes the risk for his action.

This is just a matter of details. We seem to agree in principle that the goal in such (rare) cases would be to stop the attacker, not kill them. Certainly most people will respond to attack quickly and without much planning. You are correct that the attacker assumes the risk for his action, or at least should. The Christian who accidentally kills a man, or even, in the heat of the moment, purposefully kills him... is not a murderer. They have committed manslaughter. I get the sense, sometimes, that Christians have gone SO FAR to the side of willingness to kill... that they wouldn't expect to feel remorse in such a case b/c they 'did the right thing.' If I'm ever in such a situation... and I kill the attacker... I will simultaneously thank the Lord for preserving my family and repent for not having found a way to preserve the life of my attacker.

Thanks for the tone of your dialogue Homer